Sharon Angle, the Republican candidate for senator in Nevada running against Harry Reid, is now famous at least in liberal circles by attacking insurance mandates by saying “You’re paying for things you don’t even need.” Among them is maternity leave. As she says, “I’m not going to have any more babies, but I sure get to pay for it on my insurance.”
There are arguments to be made against mandates, and against required maternity leave for that matter, but, gosh, can’t she do better than argue against things because she doesn’t need them herself? Does she really want her insurance to drop care for uterine cancer because half the people paying for the coverage don’t need it? Or drop coverage of menopausal problems because well over half don’t need it or won’t need for years or don’t need it anymore?
As I say, there are arguments to be made for a free society and against what was once called the nanny state (though not so much any more, though it’s gotten even more nanny-ish), arguments that need to be made, but coarse appeals to self-interest are not among them. It’s not a vision of the public good that will draw anyone other than people apparently as pinched and crass as Ms. Angle. It’s not a vision that will help an unknown beat even someone as vulnerable as Harry Reid.
September 25th, 2010 | 2:53 am
Should we–as a class– not be able to tailor insurance to our needs? Surely an older woman should get some sort of discount for the cost of maternity care.
September 25th, 2010 | 10:48 am
Obviously if you don’t have to pay for things that you don’t need, it’s not insurance.
However, the problem isn’t that Sharron Angle says dumb things. It’s that very few politicians say anything but. This is no more dumb than saying we can insure millions more people and overall costs will go down, which is what Obama and other Democrats claimed in selling the health care bill.
The reason I could vote for Sharron Angle with a clear conscience is that I believe she would learn something as a Senator without giving up her principles, and come up with better ways to present her ideas. Her statement is in accordance with her principle of less coercion, even if it is misguided. Harry Reid, on the other hand, will say anything at all, without regard to either fact or principle.
But to back up a little more, if the arguments for a free society were to be found in schools, colleges, the mainstream media, or anywhere else that people commonly pick up their ideas, we might get better rhetoric from our politicians.
September 25th, 2010 | 11:22 am
two possible answers:
Because she received insurance when she had her children.
Or (more likely) she did not and the new mandate rectifies that injustice.
I don’t know what “class” you mean (the healthy?) opting out or “tailoring insurance” but why should elderly women get a discount? They are prone to their own problems (just as older men I hasten to add).
No, I don’t like regulation but I certainly prefer state to federal.
Angle comes off sounding like an anti-child yuppie.
September 25th, 2010 | 2:46 pm
Insurance is risk pooling. With regard to property and casualty insurance, the risks may be only weekly associated with where one stands in the life cycle. Mrs. Angle, a resident of Nevada, likely has little use for flood insurance and will not have any more use for it as she gets older.
It is characteristic of health, life, and long term care insurance that one exchanges unpredictable spikes in need characteristic of a given time in one’s life for a regular and predictable charge assessed over the whole course of one’s life. She should know better.
September 25th, 2010 | 6:16 pm
David,
Suppose she had not used child care (and, inter alia, I don’t believe in government-funded child care, because what the government funds, it controls–think on that) but instead used a mandatory vision or dental plan. Suppose I have perfect vision, or am blind, or have no teeth: why should I have to get a plan with those features?
The answer is simple: for this stupid idea to work, it must be one size fits all, so that the people who are forced to subscribe to costly features they do not use are subsidizing them for those who do. Conversely, if the government does not think your particular health needs are a priority, you may not be able to get the coverage you need at all–without paying a higher premium, which the government would then subject to a “tax” or penalty in the name of keeping health care “affordable”.
Angle may not have chosen the best example, but her point is quite correct.
September 26th, 2010 | 9:14 am
My 21-year-old unmarried son recently acquired health insurance through his employer. His insurance has a maternity rider on it. How does this make any sense?
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact